rogers



UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE SAML. FLINT AND' ROBERT S. ROGERS, OF LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS, ASSIGNOR TO IVM. F. JOHNSON, OF SAME PLACE.

HEEL FOR BOOTS AND SHOES.

To all whom 'it may concern:

Be it known that we, SAMUEL FLIRT and `onn'r S. ROGERS, of Lynn, in the county of Essex and State of Massachusetts, have invented a new and Improved Manufacture of Heels for Boots or Shoes, and do hereby declare that the same is fully described and represented in the following specification and the accompanying drawings, of which- Figure 1 denotes a side view; Fig. 2, a bottom view, and Fig. 3, a longitudinal and vertical section of a shoe having the said .invention applied to it.

The nature of the invention consists in a combination of a wooden body or heel and an elastic or india rubber guard applied within the heel and so as to make a part thereof in manner as hereinafter described.

In such drawings, A., exhibits a shoe, of which, a is the sole and B, the heel. This heel is constructed mainly of wood and has a cylindrical or a tapering cavity, l), bored upward through it or into it for the reception of a cylindrical or other proper shaped block or piece of vulcanized india rubber C, arranged in it as shown in the drawings the said block of rubber being made to project a short distance beyond the outer bearing surface of the heel. In this way, the india rubber forms a spring to relieve the heel from concussion and noise and it also operates to prevent to a considerable extent, the wooden part of the heel from being worn down. It also prevents the shoe from slipping on ice when said shoe may be worn in winter. The whole forms a heel of great value and one which can be made much cheaper than a heel of the same size composed of layers of leather fastened together either by the ordinary process of pegging or stitching.

Ve are aware that heels have been made hollow or chambered, and with what is usually termed hard india rubber and that such heels have had elastic balls or meniscus shaped pieces or plates of india rubber let into the same, and to work toward and away from the perforated plate of metal fixed in the heel. Vile are also aware that such elastic meniscus balls and perforated metallic plates have been applied to the soles of shoes, the whole being described in Charles Goodyear-s application for a patent rejected September 27th, 1856. Therefore, we do not claim such, our improved manufacture of heel, differing essentially therefrom, as in the first place, the india rubber part is a solid block or cylinder, filling the whole space provided within the wooden body for its recept-ion. Secondly, the heel contains no unfilled space or chamber between it and the ball, and in which the rubber may vibrate as it does in the heel described by the said Goodyear. Furthermore, the body part of our heel is made of wood. Taking it as a whole it is a new and improved article of manufacture, wherein the rubber acts as a guard to the wooden body or as a preventive of wear of the sa me.

le do not claim a heel made wholly of india rubber, nor one composed of metal and india rubber, but

That we do claim is- An improved manufacture of heel made of wood and india rubber combined and arranged together substantially as set forth.

In testimony whereof we have hereunto set oul signatures.

SAMUEL FLINT. ROBERT S. ROGERS.

Vitnesses E. BAKER, WM. HowLAND. 

